What I’ve Been Reading: The Bible and Homosexual Practice – Texts and Hermeneutics

For more than three thousand years Jews and Christians have understood the Bible to condemn homosex in no uncertain terms. Today, however, we are witnessing the rise of a gay hermeneutic that reinterprets the Bible’s teachings on homosex in a way that allows for at least some forms of homosex. While small in number, this movement has a handful of reputable scholars making their case. So what does the Bible really say? Have we misunderstood the Bible on this issue for millennia, or are the Scriptures being twisted by those who want the Scriptures to affirm homosex for various personal or social reasons?

Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneuticsis a must-read for everyone who want to know what the Bible has to say on this topic. Gagnon examines the relevant OT (creation, cursing of Ham, concubine, Sodom and Gomorrah, Leviticus, cult prostitutes, David and Jonathan) and NT texts in depth, the cultural background of the Ancient Near East (ANE), and classic arguments offered against homosex (focusing on the argument from anatomical complementarity and natural function). He finishes the book by interacting with arguments against the Bible’s enduring authority on this issue, showing how none of them are successful.

The great thing about Gagnon’s book is that he interacts with the arguments of the scholars representing the gay hermeneutic and shows why their interpretations are found wanting. This feature of the book means you will not just hear one side of the debate, but both sides. I think you will find Gagnon’s research impressive, and his argument that the Bible unequivocally condemns all homosexual behavior because it violates God’s intention for human sexuality very persuasive. Gagnon has produced the standard work on this topic that is a must-read for those on both sides of the aisle.

Here are my notes from the book. They are far from exhaustive and admittedly fail to do justice to the detailed arguments presented in the book:

Introduction

In his introduction, Gagnon begins by explaining why this issue is important, namely because of the social change we are seeing in regards to homosexuality, and the ways this is affecting public policy and the church. There are risks to discussing the issue as well, namely false charges of being homophobic, intolerant, exclusive, uncritical, and outdated. Be that as it may, it is important to speak out on this matter out of devotion to God, because it matters how humans act toward one another, the window of time for speaking out against the moral legitimacy of homosex is closing, and our personal relationships with homosexuals.

The objective of the book is to demonstrate the Bible clearly and unequivocally condemns homosex in any form, and that there are no good hermeneutical arguments or scientific reasons for overriding the Bible’s authority on this matter. “In sum, the Bible presents the anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and female as clear and convincing proof of God’s will for sexual unions. Even those who do not accept the revelatory authority of Scripture should be able to perceive the divine will through the visible testimony of the structure of creation. Thus same-sex intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order.”—37

Ch 1 – The Witness of the Old Testament

How did the Hebrews’ stance toward homosexuality differ from their neighbors? We know the most about ANE attitudes toward homosexuality from Mesopotamia. Sources include laws, magical texts, myth and ritual practice, and epic stories. The first law regarding homosexuality comes from the late second millennium B.C. Tablet A said that if a man coercively penetrates another man of similar social status, or if a man slanders another man by saying he has been repeatedly penetrated by another man, then he is to be castrated (since he denied his victim his manhood, his own manhood is to be forfeited).

In a Babylonian omen text, Summa alu (pre-7th century B.C.), five omens concern homosex. One omen speaks favorably of a man who penetrates another man of similar social status. Doing so gives him superiority over the other man. It also says that sex with a male prostitute can cause a hard destiny to leave the man. Another omen says that homosex with a courtier will result in personal terrors for a year. Two other omens deal with having sex with a fellow prison inmate or house-born slave. Both speak negatively of the behavior. In the Almanac of Incantations it speaks favorably of “love of a man for a man,” which indicates that homosex was not always viewed as a power play by a dominant partner.

It was also acceptable to have sex with male cult prostitutes. It was believed that the goddess had transformed such men into a man-woman. By having sex with such a person, the devotee was able to access the power of the goddess. Though it was socially acceptable to have sex with these cult prostitutes, they were treated with social disdain.

There were no laws criminalizing consensual homosex. They may have even permitted homosex between a superior with an inferior or with a man from a different clan.

In Egypt, the evidence is conflicting. There is no evidence of homosexual cult prostitution in Egypt. Some coffin texts speak of homosexuality in a positive way, while others do so in a negative way. There is even evidence of homosexual Pharaohs (Pep II, Niuserre, Ikhnaton). In the myth of Seth and Horus, homosexuality is depicted as a form of aggression. It’s clear that they viewed the receptive male partner as shameful.

The Book of the Dead contains two confessions in which the dead assert their innocence of pederasty. In this text, the active male partner is clearly condemned – not just the passive partner.

The evidence suggests that Egypt was more tolerant of homosex in its earlier history rather than its later history.

The only Hittite law regarding homosexuality was a law forbidding sex between a father and son. It’s not clear whether this was due to the incestuous nature of the sex or because it involved two males. There are other laws related to bestiality, adultery, rape, and the like, but none that speak to homosexuality in general. This could be due to the cultural rarity of homosex or due to a cultural acceptance of the behavior.

There is no extra-biblical evidence of homosexual practice in Ugarit and Canaan, but the Bible speaks of homosexuality as one of the abominations for which God drove the people out of the land (Lev 18:1-5,24-30; 20:22-26; 1 Kings 14:24).

In summary, there is no uniform opinion of homosex in the ANE. Different people groups had different opinions, and opinions shifted over time.

The Bible

The Bible goes well beyond any other ANE cultural in condemning homosex in any and all forms.

Genesis 1-3

While the opening chapters of Genesis do not speak to homosex, they do provide us with a general understanding of human sexuality related to God’s purposes in creation. This has huge ramifications for what sexual practices will be acceptable.

God made humans male and female. The fullness of God’s image is displayed in the union of male and female. They are created as anatomical complementarities. The female is the appropriate and only sexual other to the male. Male and female are to unite, or more precisely re-unite, because the woman was taken out from the man. The male-female union restores the original wholeness of man. The bond is so strong that it even takes precedence over the parental bond (the man and wife are to leave their parents). While procreation is the typical result of such unions, interestingly the text focuses on the relational complementarity of the two rather than their procreational responsibilities.

The legitimacy of same-sex relationships would require an entirely different creation story. There is no basis in creation for affirming same-sex relationships.

Genesis 9:20-27

The periscope of the cursing of Ham is to show how the Canaanites came to be subject to the Israelites. Ham, is said to have seen his father’s nakedness while he was drunk. The brothers, trying to rectify the situation, took their father’s garment, and walking backwards into his tent, covered their father with his garment so that they would not see his nakedness. When Noah woke up, he realized what Ham had done to him and cursed him for it.

Gagnon argues that this story is about Ham’s homosexual and incestuous rape of his father. On its face this seems implausible. After all, if Noah was raped by Ham, why would Ham’s brothers try to rectify the situation by covering their father? How would that solve the problem? It would only solve the problem if the problem was nakedness. Furthermore, the text makes it clear that Shem and Japheth did not see their father’s nakedness. How did they avoid doing so? It’s because they walked in to Noah’s tent backward to lay Noah’s garment over him. They didn’t avoid seeing his nakedness by not having homosexual relations with him. The text seems to make the issue about what is seen, not about sex.

The problem with this interpretation is that it doesn’t explain why Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan rather than Ham himself. Also, it doesn’t make sense of Noah’s reaction. Would it be appropriate to describe voyeurism as something that Ham “had done to” Noah?

We know from other passages that “uncovering” and “seeing the nakedness” are euphemisms for sexual intercourse (Lev 18:6-18; 20:11,17-21; 18:19). Since Ham had brought out his father’s garment from the tent, it appears that he was bringing it out as proof for bragging rights. We know from other ANE texts that homosex was used to claim superiority over another. Ham may have been attempting to usurp his father’s authority and lay claim to succeed his father as patriarch.

Only incestuous rape can make sense of the severity and recipient of punishment. While seeing one’s father naked would have been shameful, subjecting his child to slavery for it is a bit extreme. Also, if Ham committed the evil deed, why did Canaan get cursed. “Just as Ham committed a heinous act with his ‘seed’ (sperm), so too the curse fell on his ‘seed’ (son, descendants).”

Leviticus 18:24-30 and 20:22-26 cite the reasons God vomited the Canaanites out of the land. This included incest and homosex. The author of Genesis, in reciting the periscope of Ham and Noah, is attempting to show that the very origin of the Canaanites began with such abominations. Not only did Ham commit rape, but homosexual rape; and not just homosexual rape, but incestuous rape; and not just incestuous rape, but the rape of one’s own father – a man to whom the greatest respect was due.

This interpretation of the periscope has a long pedigree. It seems to be reflected in three translations of the LXX and part of the Babylonian Talmud.

Could it just be that Moses was merely condemning incest and/or rape? This is doubtful. None of the Levitical prohibitions against incest include male-male pairings (father-son, brother-brother, uncle-nephew, grandfather-grandson). The most straightforward explanation for this is that the condemnation of homosex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 was understood to be so sweeping that it did not warrant calling out specific forms of homosexual relationships, incestuous or otherwise. Any male-on-male sexual activity was wrong, period.—70-1

Does it matter that Ham’s act of homosex was motivated out a desire for power rather than love? No. The Bible condemns the acts, not the motivation. Questions of sexual orientation and love are just as irrelevant for homosex as they are for incest, adultery, or bestiality.—70

Genesis 19:4-11

Because this passage does not explicitly condemn homosex, and does not speak to consensual, loving homosexual relationships, many want to argue that it doesn’t have anything to with either homosexuality, or at least the kind of homosexuality expressed today (loving, consensual relationships). Some argue that what is being condemned is inhospitality or rape. Derrick Bailey, John Boswell, and John McNeill argue that “know” in Genesis 19:5 means to “get acquainted with” rather than “have intercourse with.” It’s true that the Hebrew yada doesn’t normally refer to sex, but it is used that way in at least 15 other places, and the context warrants it here. After all, when the men of Sodom were beating down Lot’s door to get their hands on the angels, Lot offers them his daughters who are said not to have “known a man.” Clearly he is referring to their virginity, not their social integration.—73

Some will point to texts outside of Genesis that speak of Sodom’s sins, noting that none mention homosexuality (Is 1:7-17; Ezek 16:49-50; Lk 10:10-12; Jude 7). None may reference it explicitly, but the “abominations” described by Ezekiel is likely a reference to homosexuality, as is the sexual immorality spoken of by Jude. Of course, nobody has ever believed that the only sin for which Sodom was judged was the sin of homosexuality. Clearly there were other sins they were guilty of as well. While the sin of Sodom is never named in Genesis 19, Moses is retelling the story to illustrate why God was judging the city so harshly. Not only were they inhospitable towards strangers, but they were guilty of rape. Not only were they guilty of rape, but they were guilty of homosexual rape. Homosexuality was not their only sin, but one of the most egregious of a wide range of sins.—75

Some will point to the fact that homosex was often a tool of aggression in the ANE – used to show one’s power over an inferior. That is true, but that does not void the element of sexual desire. After all, if the aggressor did not find it at all sexually pleasurable, how would he get or maintain an erection?—77,97

Judges 19:22-25

This story of the Levite and his concubine in Gibeah is amazingly similar to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Like the story of Sodom, the men of the city want to gang rape the Levite, his host tries to dissuade them from doing this “wicked thing,” and offers the mob his daughter and his guest’s concubine for sex. The Levite thrust his concubine outside, and the mob had their way with her all night long, resulting in her death.

Some have argued that just as no one concludes form this story of heterosexual rape that heterosex is immoral, one should not conclude from this story (or the Sodom story) of attempted homosexual rape that homosex is wrong. All that is clearly wrong is the coercive nature of the sex; i.e. the rape. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the historical and literary context of the book of Judges, namely the Levitical law. Leviticus 18:24-30 and 20:22-26 make it clear that homosexual intercourse is immoral. That is why the text twice refers to the mob’s desire for sex with the Levite as a “wicked thing.” No comparable statement was made of sex with the women, though that would have been immoral as well. Same-sex intercourse was viewed by the host and the narrator as worse than the rape of women.—95

Homosexual cult prostitution in Israel

During the divided monarchy a number of texts speak of male cult prostitutes: qedesim (Dt 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14). In Revelation 22:15 John lists “dogs” as those that would be outside of the New Jerusalem. He can’t be referring to Gentiles because Gentiles will be in the New Jerusalem. In a parallel vice list in Revelation 21:8 the term used is “abominable.” These texts are drawing on Deuteronomy 23:18 which calls cult prostitutes “dogs,” and refers to their acts as abominations.—105

Some will argue that the condemnation of male cult prostitutes is irrelevant to the modern practice of loving homosexual practice today, but this ignores the fact that in the ANE, the most accepted form of homosexual practice was in the context of cult worship. If the authors of Scripture even condemned this form of homosex, then there is no conceivable way they would approve of same-sex behavior in any other context.—108-9

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Unlike the stories we have examined thus far, these are proscriptive commands. Four things should be noted about these passages:

The context in which homosexuality is condemned. It is surrounded by condemnations of other forms of sexual sin including incest (18:6-18), adultery (18:20), and bestiality (18:23). The only “sexual” sin mentioned in Leviticus 18 that does not have enduring authority for us today is the command against sex with a woman during her menstrual period (18:19).

The degree of revulsion associated with homosex is clear from its identification as an abomination, which means something detestable, repugnant, and disgusting. While all of the sins mentioned in Leviticus 18 are summed up as “abominations” (18:26-27,29-30), only homosex is specifically singled out as an abomination within the list itself. The same is true of the passage in Leviticus 20. It is the only forbidden act in the entire Holiness Code that is specifically designated as an abominations.

The severity of the moral crime is evident from the punishment: death.

Unlike other ANE laws, these laws are unqualified and absolute. They do not just proscribe the receptive homosexual partner, or just condemn coercive homosex. No limitations of reference are provided. All homosex is prohibited.—113-6

John Boswell et al argue that “abomination” doesn’t refer to something intrinsically evil, but just something ritually unclean for Jews. While it’s true that the word can be used in that way, the context of Lev 18/20 makes it clear that it is not being used that way. Is bestiality and adultery simply a ritual no-no or intrinsically evil? Why should we think that homosexuality is any different given the context? The vast majority of the uses of this word refer to things that are intrinsically immoral.—117-9

Some try to argue against these Levitical passages by pointing to an underlying motive or assumption that no longer holds true today. Some argue that Moses’ concern was idolatry. They note that the prohibition against homosex is immediately preceded by the condemnation of child sacrifice (18:21). In the context of cult worship, homosex is condemned – not just any homosex, but that associated with idolatrous worship practices of the Canaanites. The problem with this interpretation is four-fold. First, the prohibition of Leviticus 20:22 is not in the context of condemnations of idolatrous cult worship, but other sexual sins. Secondly, do these interpreters suggest that child sacrifice is also morally acceptable so long as it is not associated with pagan cult worship? What about the other sexual sins listed in Leviticus 18 and 20? Is adultery morally permissible so long as it is not adultery with a temple prostitute? Thirdly, had Moses wanted to condemn male temple prostitution he could have specifically condemned sex with qedesim. Instead, he condemned sex between males in general. Fourthly, as noted earlier, in the ANE, to condemn the most accepted form of homosex (cult prostitution) implies the condemnation of all other forms of homosex as well.—129-131

Others argue that Moses condemned homosexual behavior because it wastes seed and does not lead to procreation (a problem in light of God’s command to multiply). That was a problem in days past when tribes struggled for survival in light of disease, war, and famine, but is no longer a concern in our own day in which we are facing over-population. This fails to explain the whole of Leviticus 18/20, however. Incest and adultery would surely lead to procreation, and yet they were forbidden as well. While a woman having sex with an animal (18:23) doesn’t lead to procreation, it doesn’t waste any human seed either. Also, if Moses’ concern was with sexual activities that do not result in procreation, why didn’t he condemn masturbation or sex with a pregnant woman?—133-4

Saul Olyan argues that the issue was contact between semen and feces. If this was Moses’ motivation, then why only condemn man-on-man sex? Why not also condemn anal sex between a male and female? Also, this explanation ignores the rationale provided by Moses. He was not concerned with the mixing of semen and feces, but the discomplementarity of the genders involved. The problem with homosexuality was that a man was using another man as if he were a woman.—134-5

The prohibition of having sex with a menstruating woman may have been identified as an abomination due to the mixing of a life-giving fluid (semen) with a death-bearing fluid (menses). The menstrual cycle was the period of time for a woman’s body to cleanse itself in preparation for the next fertility cycle. It was a time of death, and thus “not the time for men to intrude with procreative designs.”—138

Homosex denies the creative design of God for sex and gender. It denies the complementarity of male and female. The penis is designed to fit in the vagina, not an anus. Not only does homosex use another male as if he were a female (thus confusing gender), but it also confuses the function of the anus. It is designed to excrete feces, not as a receptacle to receive sperm.—139

Why doesn’t Moses refer to female homosexuality? It may be that it was virtually unknown and therefore did not require legislation. No other ANE legal text mentions it either. It may be because the sexual sins listed are defined in terms of penetration, and females cannot penetrate each other.—144-5

David and Jonathan

Some have appealed to the relationship between David and Jonathan as an example of a loving homosexual relationship found in the OT (1 Samuel 18—23; 2 Samuel 1). The text speaks of “the soul of Jonathan” being “bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul (1 Sam 18:1). This no more intimates a romantic connection than when Judah refers to Jacob and Benjamin’s (father and son) souls as being bound up with each other (Gen 44:30-41). What about the use of “love”? We must remember that this was a political alliance as much as it was a friendship. Although Jonathan was the heir apparent to the throne, he recognized that David was God’s chosen. That’s why he gave David is armor and sword – it was an act of political investure. He aligned himself with David in a way typical of the covenant-treaties of the ANE. For example, the vassals of the Assyrian king were told to “love him [King Ashurbanipal] as yourselves.” King Tyre is said to “love” David (1 Kings 5:1), as did all of Saul’s servants (18:22). Are we to believe they were all homosexuals too?

What about the comment that Jonathan “delighted very much” and “took great pleasure” in David (19:1)? This has no sexual connotation, as is evidenced by the fact that Saul is also said to delight in David (18:22). So does God (2 Sam 15:26; 22:20; Ps 18:20; 1 Kings 10:9; 2 Chron 9:8). It refers to favor.—146-9

What do we make of David and Jonathan kissing and weeping with each other (1 Sam 20:41-42)? This is in the context of their last meeting together. The two related to one another as brothers (2 Sam 1:26), not lovers. Anticipating that you would not see your own brother again would be an emotional experience. In the ANE, there was nothing inherently erotic or homosexual about two men kissing each other. That was a regular form of greeting. Of the 27 occurrences of the Hebrew word “to kiss,” 24 have no erotic overtones and usually refer to male relatives.—151-2

But what about David’s claim that Jonathan’s love was more wonderful to him than the love of women (2 Sam 1:26)? “Jonathan’s repeated display of (non-sexual) kindness to David at a time when Jonathan was in a position of power, selflessly risking his own life and certainly his own kingdom, surpassed anything David had ever known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman.”—152-3

No text mentions sex between Jonathan and David, and both men were married. The sexual vigor of David toward females was hardly in question (1 Sam 18:17-29; 25:39-43; 2 Sam 3:2-5,13-16; 5:13-16; 11). Lest anyone say David was just doing his duty as king, David’s sin with Bathsheba makes it clear that he was sexually attracted to women. Why was the narrator so keen on speaking of David’s sexual exploits with women, but be so mum on any sexual activity between he and Jonathan? It seems that modern readers are reading something into the text that is simply not there, imposing modern forms of male-male friendship onto the ANE.—153-4

In summary, “marriage in general and sexual intercourse in particular is thus evaluated as an attachment of two complementary beings into ‘one flesh,’ a reunion with one’s sexual ‘other.’ … [S]ame-sex intercourse was fundamentally incompatible with the creation of men and women as complementary sexual beings. For a man to have sexual intercourse with another male as though the latter were not a male but a female violates God’s design for the created order.”—155,157

Ch 2 – Same-sex Intercourse as “Contrary to Nature” in Early Judaism

To place the NT teaching on sexuality in its context, we must examine what Jewish authors had to say about homosexuality between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200. In the Letter to Aristeas 152 (200-100 B.C.) the author claims Jews are morally superior to the Gentiles because the Gentiles “draw near to males” whereas “we are quite separated from these practices.” The Sibylline Oracles 3 (163-145 B.C.) says “male will have intercourse with male and they will set up boys in houses of ill-fame” when Romans take over the world. In contrast, Jews “are mindful of holy wedlock, and do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do … many nations…transgressing the holy law of immortal God.” Jews “avoid adultery and indiscriminate intercourse with males.” The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 190-92, 212-214 (50 B.C. – A.D. 100) says “the limits of sexual intercourse set by nature” should not be transgressed by “intercourse between males”…”nor should females imitate…the sexual role of men.” The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (date uncertain, 150 B.C. – A.D. 200) speaks ill of “corrupters of boys” and charges Sodom because they “exchanged the order of its nature.” The Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 (A.D. 200) says “These are they that are to be stoned: he that has sexual intercourse with his mother, his father’s wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast….”

Most of the texts speak of males having sex with other males because that is the prohibition in Leviticus, but there is little doubt that the form of male-male sex most had in mind was man-boy sex since that was the dominant form of homosex at the time.—162-3

Jewish and Roman critics of homosex had four primary arguments for thinking homosex was against nature:

Homosex cannot lead to procreation (reproductive incapacity)

Gender sameness is an affront to God’s design for sexuality (no anatomical fittedness)

Homoerotic desires are due to an excess of passion

Even animals don’t practice homosex—163

Interestingly, age-disparity in the case of pederasty was never a critique of homosexual practices (as it is in our day).

Cannot lead to procreation / against nature

Plato wrote in Laws 636c: “When male unites with female procreation, the pleasure experience is held to be in accordance with nature, but contrary to nature when male makes with male or female with female.” The first-century Stoic philosopher, Musonius Rufus wrote: “But of all sexual relations, those involving adultery are most unlawful, and no more tolerable are those involving males with males, because the daring and flagrant act is contrary to nature.”—165

Josephus wrote, “The law recognizes only sexual intercourse that is in accordance with nature, the [intercourse a man has] with a woman, and that only for the procreation of children” (Against Apion 2.199). He later describes “sexual intercourse with males which is contrary to nature and without restraint” and says stories of homosex between the gods was invented for “an excuse for their pleasures, which were disgusting and contrary to nature” (2.273-5).

Philo understood the Mosaic law to be condemning the active homosexual partner, and saw this as justified because “he pursues a pleasure that is contrary to nature and does his part to make the cities desolate and empty of inhabitants by destroying the procreative sperm” (On the Life of Abraham 136-7).

“The fact that the semen ejaculated by the penis ‘takes root’…and nurtures life only when penetration of a woman’s vagina occurs is clear and convincing proof of God’s exclusive design in nature for heterosexual intercourse. God/nature obvious intended the female vagina to be the complementary sex organ for the male penis.”—169

Gender discomplementarity

The male penis and female vagina are anatomical compliments. There is no compliment between two male penises or two female vaginas. For two males to have sex requires that one male use the other’s males anus as if it were a vagina, contrary to its natural function. Mounting a male as if he were a female is to emasculate the passive partner. In that day, it was particularly loathsome for a man to act as if he were a subordinate female.—169-70

In Plato’s Phaedrus 250e, quoted in Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love 751d-e, he writes: “If union contrary to nature with males does not destroy or curtail a lover’s tenderness, it stands to reason that the love between men and women, being natural will be conducive to friendship developing in due course from favor. … But the union with males, either unwillingly with force and plunder, or willingly with weakness and effeminacy, surrendering themselves, as Plato says, ‘to be mounted in the custom of four-footed animals and to be sowed with seed contrary to nature’—this is an entirely ill-favored favor, shameful and contrary to Aphrodite.”

The first-century A.D. author of Pseudo-Phocylides says, “Don’t transgress the limits of sexual intercourse set by nature with unlawful love. Not even to animals themselves is intercourse between males pleasing. Nor should females imitate in any way the sexual role of men. … Having long hair is not appropriate for males, but for voluptuous women. Guard the youthful beauty of a well-formed boy; for many rage for sexual intercourse with a male” (190-92, 212-14).

Philo described Sodom’s homosexual activities as “throw[ing] off from their necks the law of nature.” He goes on to say: “For not only in being madly desirous of women where they destroying the marriages of others, but also, although they were men, [they began] mounting males, the doers not standing in awe of the nature held in common with those who had it done to them…” (On the Life of Abraham 135-6)

In Contemplative Life 59-61, Philo comments on Plato’s Symposium as follows: “Nearly the whole of Plato’s Symposium is about love, not simply about men mad after women or of women after men – for these desires pay tribute to the laws of nature – but about men [mad] after males, differing from them only in age.” He goes on to say that homosex turns the passive partner into a male-female hybrid, and corrupts the active partner by consuming him with passion that detracts from his social obligations. It also results in depopulation of cities.

In another place Philo writes: “There has barged into the cities like a raucous religious procession another evil, greater by far than the one just mentioned [men marrying women known to be sterile], pederasty, which formerly was a matter of great reproach even to be mentioned, but now is a matter of boasting not only for the doers but also for those who have it done to them…. And let the pederast recognize that he remains under the same penalty, since he pursues a pleasure that is contrary to nature and does his part to make the cities desolate and empty of inhabitants by destroying the procreative sperm” (On the Special Laws 3.37-42).

Excess passion

Another criticism of homosex is that it is “an insatiable overflow of lust beyond heterosexual intercourse.” In other words, it was the problem of those who had become bored with heterosex. In their sexual perversions, they needed something more to satisfy their sexual appetites. While the homosexuality we face today is often “constitutional” and exclusive, even today there are those who engage in homosex out of sexual perversion and a lustful appetite for something new.—177-8

Animal Heterosexuality

The Athenian speaker in Plato’s Laws wished to follow nature and outlaw the “joining with males and boys in sexual intercourse as though with females, adducing as evidence the nature of animals and point out that male does not touch male for sexual purposes, because that is not natural. … Our citizens must not be worse than birds and many other animals which…when they reach [the] age [for breeding] pair off male with female according to instinct and female with male and for the remaining time they…[remain] firm to their first agreements of love (836c, 840d-e).

The first-century A.D. author of Pseudo-Phocylides says, “Don’t transgress the limits of sexual intercourse set by nature with unlawful love. Not even to animals themselves is intercourse between males pleasing.” (190-92).

While the ancients thought sex should be for procreation, and while they saw the role of women in sex as inferior to the male, the core of their insights remain viable today, namely that only male and female are anatomically fitted for each other sexually, and that the natural purpose of sex cannot be achieved by two people of the same sex – which evidences that it is unnatural. The fittedness of the male penis for the female vagina is evidenced not only by the dimensions and shape of each organ, “but also by the tissue environment of the vagina (its relative sturdiness against rupture and its cleanliness when compared to the rectal environment), they capacity of both penis and vagina for mutual sexual stimulation (penial glands and the clitoris), and their capacity for procreation.”—181

Ch 3 – The Witness of Jesus

Jesus made no direct statements regarding homosex per se, but that does not mean He approved of it (any more than His silence on incest and bestiality means he approved of those—228), nor does it mean He is silent on the issue. We can infer Jesus’ position on the matter from four points of data:

Given Jesus’ view of the Mosaic Law and his cultural milieu, it is unlikely that Jesus’ position on homosex would have differed from his contemporaries’.

Jesus’ appeal to the creation texts of Genesis 1 and 2 in his discussion of marriage and divorce make it clear that his view of appropriate sexual expression was limited to the confines of male-female marriage that was monogamous and endured for life.

On other sexual matters, Jesus’ ethic was stricter than the prevailing culture, not more lenient.

Jesus’ demand for righteousness makes it unlikely that he would have been lax on this area of sexual ethics.—187-8

Jesus’ cultural context

It’s unlikely that Jesus’ silence on the matter of homosexuality should be taken as acceptance. Jesus was never hesitant to express views contrary to the prevailing religious thought, and yet he never expressed approval of homosexuality in a culture that disapproved highly of it. It’s better to take his silence as his endorsement of the Mosaic Law and cultural opinion.—188

Jesus does speak of the evil that is within men’s hearts, and one such evil was sexual immoralities (porneiai). For the Jew, this hearkened back to the full list of sexual sins in Leviticus 18 and 20, one of which was homosexuality.—191

Jesus’ appeal to the creation texts on marriage

While discussing marriage and divorce in Mark 10:1-12, Jesus appealed to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to support his contention that marriage is meant to be monogamous and last for a lifetime. He accepted the view of human sexuality presented in these creation texts as binding. The pattern for Jesus was limited to one man and one woman – not two men or two women, or any other combination. Given the creative purpose for human sexuality expressed in marriage, there was no reason for Jesus to comment on homosexuality. It is excluded on the basis that it is not a one-flesh union. Jesus’ didn’t broaden the sexual ethic, but restricted it based on the creation narrative of God’s ideal for human sexuality and relationships. If the union was something other than a male-female, life-long marriage, it was not sanctioned by Jesus or God.—193-4

Jesus’ sexual ethic was more conservative than His contemporaries’

When it came to divorce and remarriage, Jesus’ ethic was more conservative than the Mosaic Law (Dt 24:1-4) as well as His contemporaries’ views. They allowed for divorce and remarriage, whereas Jesus did not (Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16:18). “Jesus forbade divorce and did so on the grounds that (1) divorce invariably led to remarriage and (2) remarriage while one’s first spouse was still alive constituted adultery.”—200 Jesus’ only exception was for sexual sin (Mt 5:31-32; 19:9). If a man’s spouse committed adultery, he could justifiably divorce her and marry another woman. Any other scenario, however, would be de facto adultery. “We know that Jesus thought that if a person remarried while the first spouse was alive such a person committed adultery. The inference here is that sex with more than one person currently alive is an egregious sin.” Jesus’ teaching was seen as so strict that His own disciples concluded that, if true, it is better to never get married (Mt 19:10).—201-2,223

Paul cites the Jesus tradition in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. Paul understands Jesus’ prohibition against divorce to apply to both the husband and wife. If the wife has divorced her husband anyway, she should remain unmarried (which seems to confirm that the concern is more about remarriage than divorce). Both Jesus and Paul agree that if a divorced person remarries, they commit adultery. This applied both to the initiator of divorce as well as the innocent victim of divorce.—198-9,204

“Not only did he [Jesus] not condone adultery, he also expanded the definition of adultery to embrace the remarriage of divorced men and women.”—203

“[A]ll the sayings presuppose that the dissolved marriage is still in force. In God’s eyes the divorced woman and the divorced man are still married to their previous spouses. Hence sex with a divorced woman, whether in the context of remarriage or not, is the same as sex with a married woman; it is adultery. … The wording in in Matthew speaks precisely to the question of a woman who is divorced on grounds other than sexual immorality…; the expression ‘causes her to be led into adultery’ suggest that the woman had not previously committed adultery. It matters not why the woman was divorced; a woman divorced for burnt toast would still be committing adultery if she remarried. To spare her this fate, Jesus (according to Matt 5:32a) forbade the husband from divorcing his wife for any reason (except, Matthew inserts, in cases where the wife has committed an act of sexual immorality; he cannot make her into an adulteress because she has already made herself an adulteress). In other words, in all the sayings Jesus’ fundamental concern starts with the definition of adultery itself: sex with another person while one’s spouse (former or current) is still alive. The issue of victimization is a concern, as 5:32a suggests. But it is not the paramount concern. The woman victimized by a husband’s frivolous divorce does not escape the charge of adultery when she remarries. In our contemporary context our first concern is the rights of the victim. Jesus’ first concern was sexual purity.”—204-5

What was Jesus’ view of polygamy? He doesn’t say, but given his use of Genesis 1 and 2, coupled with his teaching on divorce and remarriage, he clearly would condemn it. “The divorce sayings express concern about a person having sex with another person while a former sexual partner was still alive. Given that concern, Jesus could hardly have approved of sex with multiple married partners in a polygamous relationship.”—203

Another example of Jesus’ conservativism in sexual ethics is his teaching in Mt 5:27-28. Jesus taught that adultery is not limited to the sexual act, but the spirit of adultery is even present in lustful thoughts toward a woman that is not your wife. Not only must one confine sex to their wife, but their sexual thoughts as well.—205

Jesus’ emphasis on righteousness

While Jesus had compassion on the sinners, that did not result in a lowering of God’s moral ethic for their lives.

Ch 4 – The Witness of Paul and Deutero-Paul

Romans 1:24-27

Paul speaks of God “giving them over” to something on three occasions: to unclean passions that dishonor their bodies (1:24), dishonorable passions of homoeroticism (1:26), and to an unfit mind that seeks that which is not proper (1:28). Each handing over is preceded by an exchange: exchanging the glory of the imperishable God for perishable idols (1:23), the exchange of the truth of God for the lie of idolatry (1:25), and the exchange of the natural sexual function of male-female pairing for same-sex intercourse (1:26). The first two exchanges are identical. The same is likely true of the first two giving overs. —251-2

Paul’s argument is that just as idolatry is an inexcusable sin because it suppresses the truth that creation makes clear: God transcends the creation and is not an object within the creation. Those who worship idols do so because they suppress this obvious truth that is made clear in creation. Likewise, homosexuality reveals their suppression of the truth because the material structures within creation, namely the anatomical and procreative complementarity of male and female sexual organs, make it obvious as to their purpose. Those who use male sexual organs with other males are denying the obvious, and thus suppressing the truth of human sexuality. Even those who do not have access to the Law of Moses know that homosexuality is contrary to nature, and immoral.—254

Some will claim that Paul’s appeal to nature was just an appeal to how things are normally done rather than to the material structures of creation. That this is wrong is evidenced by his former case against idolatry. Paul said idolatry is a suppression of the truth because idolatry can be seen to be false based on what can be seen in creation. In other words, what we perceive visually informs us about God. The same is true of sex. By “nature” Paul is referring to the material structures of creation. Just by observing our sexual organs and how they function, we can perceive the creator’s purpose for our sexuality, and it’s obvious that the purpose is for heterosex, not homosex. The purpose of human sexuality is so evident and obvious, that one must suppress the obvious truth to engage in it, just as they do for idolatry.—256-7,264

Paul shows a downward spiral from idolatry to homosexuality, but by no means does he mean to imply that only idolaters can be homosexual or that homosexuality is only caused by idolatry (an interpretation some, such as Dale Martin, have used to argue that the homosexuality we see in the Christian West is different from what Paul had in mind, and that this passage is irrelevant to modern homosexuality). Paul makes it clear in Romans 5:11-21 (also 7:5,7-23) that sinful passions did not originate with idolatry, but with the Fall. What Paul is doing in Romans 1 is trying to explain why homosexuality is so rampant among Gentiles: because the same self-delusion required to worship idols rather than true God is at work in their hearts so that they are also deluded regarding the purpose of human sexuality. He is not saying that every homosexual is first an idolater. “He is speaking in terms of collective entities, not individuals, and in terms of wide-spread effect, not origin.”—285-6

Paul is obviously referring back to Genesis as is evident from his references to “ever since the creation of the world” (1:20), the “Creator” (1:25). The use of “females” and “males” (1:26-27) reflects the same style of Genesis and words of the LXX. There are six significant words that are shared between Rom 1:23 and Gen 1:26. Even the combination of birds-animals-reptiles in Rom 1:23 appears in Gen 1:30. Also significant is “the lie,” (1:25) “shame” (1:27), “knowledge” and “sentence of death.” These intertextual clues make it clear that Paul is drawing on the creation account to determine the appropriate expression of human sexuality.—290-1

Paul often harkens back to the creation story for his sexual ethic (1 Cor 6:16 cites Gen 2:24; 11:2-16 harken back to Gen 1-2).—293

Why did Paul mention female homosex first? It was universally regarded as immoral, even by those who supported male homosex (see Pseudo-Lucian, Affairs of the Heart, 28). Clearly he found it more shocking as indicated by “even their females” (1:26). By mentioning lesbians first, his readers would be nodding in agreement. Then he would bring up the more controversial claim that male homosexuality was equally wrong.—301-2

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

The key to understanding these texts is understanding what arsenokoitai and malakoi refer to.

Some claim the meaning can’t be known, that they refer to something other than same-sex intercourse, or that they refer to a very specific type of same-sex intercourse that is unlike the same-sex intercourse practiced today.—306

Malakoi literally means “soft-ones,” but is used specifically to refer to “effeminate males who play the sexual role of females.” Arsenokoitai literally means “male-bedders.”—306

Malakoi has a wide range of meanings. It can refer to decadent living, a fondness for gourmet food and fine clothing, too much attention to one’s hair and appearance, too much heterosex, cowardice, and penetration by another male.—307

Since Paul places this in the context of sins that will exclude one from the kingdom, he can’t have in mind someone who pays too much attention to their hair. He must have a narrower meaning. Since the term is sandwiched between two sexual sins, Paul is referring to the sexual connotation of the word.—308

Philo used malakia two times in the context of speaking of passive homosexual partners (Spec. Laws 3.37-42). He also uses malakotes to refer to the feminizing process of passive homosexual partners (Abr. 135-7)—308-9

Martin contends that arsenokoites refers to men who exploit other men for sex. This qualification is unlikely in light of the Levitical background which was an unqualified prohibition against all same-sex behavior. David Wright has argued that arsenokoites was coined by Hellenistic Jews by conflating two Greek words that appear in both Lev 18:22 and 20:13: arsenos (male) and koiten (bed). Support for this comes from the fact that the rabbis used miskab zakur to refer to homosex, which are the two Hebrew words from these same texts. Arsenokoites would be a straight Greek translation of this Hebrew phrase.—314-5

The fact that arsenokoites appears with malakoi strengthens the case. With the latter referring to the passive partner, the former would highlight the active partner. Every time the arsenokoit- word group appears in a context that gives clues to its meaning, it always refers to homosex.—316

Hippolytus uses the term in his description of the Gnostic “Naasene” myth, in which the serpent tricks Eve into committing adultery with him, and he “approached Adam and possessed him like a boy, which is also itself contrary to the law. From that time on, adultery and arsenokoitia have come into being” (Haer. 5.26.22-23).—318

In Preparation for the Gospel (6.10.25) Eusebius quoted Bardesanes, a 2nd or 3rd century Christian, as saying, “From the Euphrates River [eastward]…a man who is derided as a murder or thief will not be the least bit angry; but if he is derided as an arsenokoites, he will defend himself to the point of murder. [Among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned.]” The last sentence does not appear in some witnesses, so it may not have been original to Bardesanes, or if it was intended as a comment by Eusebius, it may not have been original to Eusebius either. But the fact remains that this makes it clear that arsenokoites was understood to refer to male-male sex.—319

Arsenokoitia is grouped together with porneia and moicheia (adultery) in Origen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (~A.D. 450), a pseudo-Cyrilian homily (of Alexandria), Nilus of Ancyra (~A.D. 410), and John of Damascus (where arsenokoitia is directly linked to Lev 20:13).—320

The early translations of 1 Corinthians understood arsenokoitai to refer to homosexuality. In Latin it is translated “masculorum concubitores,” which means “men lying together with males.” In Syriac it is translated “those who lie with men.” In Coptic, “lying with males.”—322

There is no other sexual sin that Paul limits to exploitive forms, such as fornication, adultery, or sex with prostitutes. And if he had exploitive sex with young boys in mind, he could have used the technical term for that, paiderastes.—325

Romans 1 makes clear why Paul opposed homosex. It was the gender of the participants, not the age disparity, exploitative nature, idolatry, etc.—327

If Paul is condemning the passive partner (the one who would be exploited), then surely he cannot be restricting his condemnation of arsenokoites to those who exploit other men for sex. The condemnation is not for exploitive forms of homosex, but non-exploitative forms because the participants are willing and thus without excuse.—329

Ch 5 – The Hermeneutical Relevance of the Biblical Witness

What do these Biblical texts condemning homosex have to do with the church today?

Pederasty was in decline in the three centuries prior to Paul. Paul was aware of many forms of homosex. Mark Smith writes, “Paul probably did know of at least several different types of homosexual practices among both men and women. He used general language in Rom. 1, because he intended his proscription to apply in a general way to all homosexual behavior, as he understood it. In context, then, homosexual activity, in all its manifestations (as understood by Paul), is evidence of God’s judgment on human sinfulness.”[1]

Is same-sex attraction genetic? Advocates today assume that people are born gay, and believe the scientific evidence demonstrates this. It doesn’t. Simon LeVay’s brain studies were flawed. Not all of the “gay brains” had a small hypothalamus, and not all of the “straight brains” had a large hypothalamus. Even LeVay admitted that his research couldn’t prove whether a smaller hypothalamus caused same-sex desires, or whether same-sex desires caused the hypothalamus to shrink.—396-9

Dean Hamer was looking for a gay gene. Out of 40 gay twin brothers, 83% had a particular genetic sequence on the X chromosome. But there was no heterosexual control group. A second study was done and found a 67% occurrence. It found the same marker among some in the heterosexual control group. Again, this cannot be the direct cause. We’re not even sure what this genetic sequence causes. It may not cause same-sex attraction, but personality traits that make it more likely for one to fail to conform to gender norms. A Canadian team tried to replicate Hamer’s results with a larger test group, but couldn’t.—399-403

Twin studies prove that same-sex attraction cannot be biologically determined. Since identical twins experience the same hormone bath in the womb and the same DNA, when one twin is gay, both should be gay 100% of the time. But both are gay in only about 10% of cases. In fact, non-identical twins are twice as likely to both be gay as identical twins, which can only be explained by environmental factors, not DNA. To rule out environmental factors, one would have to show that identical twins raised in different environments are both gay when one is gay. Four sets of female twins were found that met such a criteria, and in no case were both girls gay.—403-6

Hormones in the womb cannot cause same-sex attraction either. Adult homosexuals that are given testosterone don’t develop heterosexual desires, but a stronger sex drive for other men. Also, twin studies show that can’t be the cause.—407-8

Same-sex attraction is primarily due to gender nonconformity, gender insecurity, and socialization. When one is insecure in their own gender, they become attracted to others who possess the traits they want to see in themselves. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, perceived or actual rejection by one’s father or same-sex siblings, and other elements can result in same-sex attraction.—408-412

Cultural attitudes also affect whether or not same-sex attraction and behavior will manifest itself. Compare Greek culture to Hebrew culture. Even in New Guinea there are tribes that institutionalize pederasty. It’s also been demonstrated that urban areas have higher rates of homosexuality, and this is even after one has factored in the fact that homosexuals will move to urban areas for acceptance. If the environment is open to homosexuality and there are few negative sanctions for it, more will experiment with it.—413-7

Can someone change their sexual orientation? Yes. The studies abound with examples. Not all experience change, but a significant number do. In fact, 2% of the culture claims to be ex-gay compared to 4% that are gay.—418-429

The whole of the OT assumes that all relationships are opposite-sex. The Proverbs all talk about male and female relationships. Same for the Song of Solomon. The 10th command in the 10 Commandments is not to covet your neighbor’s wife.—438

Homosexual relationships are typically not monogamous and do not endure.–452-9

Rate this:

Share:

Like this:

Related

46 Responses to “What I’ve Been Reading: The Bible and Homosexual Practice – Texts and Hermeneutics”

“…..same-sex intercourse constitutes an inexcusable rebellion against the intentional design of the created order.”

POINT ONE:
A very sweeping statement but does it even consider this “rebellion” of the social order in non human species as also rebellion against the “intentional design of the created order.”?

Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom. As of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors. According to the organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed in 1,500 species.

The observation of homosexual behavior in animals can be seen as both an argument for and against the acceptance of homosexuality in humans, and has been used especially against the claim that it is a peccatum contra naturam (“sin against nature”). For instance, homosexuality in animals was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in their amici curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which ultimately struck down the sodomy laws of 14 states. Time to move forward.

POINT TWO:
“For more than three thousand years Jews and Christians have understood the Bible to condemn” (demonic possession, witchcraft and sorcery) “in no uncertain terms.”
On the front of human health and disease; you know, it use to be that you could get a diagnosis of demonic possession. I mean that was a reasonable thing to believe you had, if you were having seizures but now we have the science of neurology and we know about epilepsy so now when your kid has seizures, you know you don’t go to the church to get him diagnosed and treated by exorcism and so that’s a good thing. Time to move forward.

POINT THREE:
The Bible states there were Temple prostitutes and Temple priest pimp prostitutes. Deuteronomy 23 acknowledges that while forbidding the Israelites from becoming temple harlots or male prostitutes for priests but for outsiders not so much, other than to say that no qadesh, that is, one practicing sodomy and prostitution in religious rituals could use “harlot money or money of dogs(male priest prostitutes as offerings to the Temple 17 “There shall be no ritual harlot of the daughters of Israel, or a perverted one of the sons of Israel. 18 You shall not bring the wages of a harlot or the price of a dog to the house of the Lord your God for any vowed offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.

The Bible also says that “One of illegitimate birth(out of wedlock) shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord. That’s a sweeping rejection, for ten generations, about 250 years for a child born out of wedlock. Time to move forward.

POINT FOUR:
Ham’s relationship regarding his “Father’s Nakedness” has nothing to do with homosex at all. The rhetoric of notes from Gen 1-3 and Gen 9:20-27 are just so rhetorical and wordy without substance as to merely appear to indict homosex to excess. Clearly Leviticus 18: 8 tells exactly what Ham did and that was having incestuous relations with his mother: “The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your “father’s nakedness”. Not all versions of the bible retains the phrase “father’s nakedness” in both Genesis and Leviticus but the King James Bible does retain both phrases which is the reason why many Christians can not connect the common phrase if they read other bible translations.

The reason that the curse fell on Canaan and not on Ham was because baby Canaan was the offspring born of Ham’s mother from the incest. Ancient Hebrew commonly speaks of a man’s nakedness to refer to sexual intercourse with the man’s wife. As Moses wrote in Leviticus, “The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness.”

As all authors and peoples do, Moses and the Jews used figures of speech. Some of the Bible’s figures of speech are euphemisms that promote modesty. For example, instead of saying that Adam had sexual intercourse with Eve, the Bible more politely says that “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived” (Gen. 4:1). And Moses writes, “the man who lies with” rather than using the modern and more crude phrase, “has sex with.” The reader who misses these common figures of speech will misunderstand the plain meaning of various passages. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and Moses used the same decency when describing other physical relations. For example, when prohibiting incest in the Mosaic Law, rather than saying, a man shall not have intercourse with his mother, Moses wrote that he shall not “uncover his father’s nakedness.”

‘The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness…’ Lev. 20:11

‘If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. … ‘If a man takes his brother’s wife… He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness.’ Lev. 20:20-21
Committing incest with any female “near of kin” can be described as “uncovering his nakedness” (Lev. 18:6), referring to the appropriate male relative, including the nakedness of your father (with your mother, Lev. 18:7), or your sister, granddaughter, stepsister, aunt, daughter-in-law and sister-in-law (Lev. 18:9-15). Of course, this can also be described in more literal terms as uncovering the woman’s nakedness, but it can also be referred to, idiomatically, as referring to the husband’s, father’s, brothers, uncle’s, or son’s nakedness.

Ezekiel used this figure of speech in this Hebrew parallelism: “In you [O Israel] men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women…” (Ezek. 22:10). And Habakkuk condemns not the sin of homosexuality but of getting your neighbor drunk in order to seduce his wife, when he warns: “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness!” (Hab. 2:15; Habakkuk warns against looking upon a neighbor’s nakedness, which is just the slightest alternate form of uncovering his nakedness.

So, understanding this common Hebrew figure of speech enables the reader to comprehend Moses’ 3,500-year-old account of why Noah cursed Canaan: Time to move forward.

It never ceases to amazed me when “believers” talk about the bible or its interpretation trying to reason the truth of every word they talk about God as though God was an existent entity. And that scriptures actually came from God, was written by God, and every word is the word of God.

But when citing any other reference outside the bible they never mention that it is the word of God or that anything outside the bible is the word of God. As though the bible is the only book god was ever capable of writing and I suppose for believers one book is all god was able to write because their god could only speak one language, the dialect of the ancients.

Thanks JASON for that timely and extensive review of a great book. I have not yet gotten through it with all my business but you review was most welcome and refreshing. I don’t expect any intelligent dialogue to come from your review here, having had much experience with homosexual and pro-homosexual zealots I expected the kind of replies above and worst to come.
Thankfully there are still some honest thinkers out here who are still trying to open eyes about the homosexuals and their agenda. You and others like this site.

“…..homosexuals and their agenda” just want you to leave them alone and stop condeming them like Jesus told you to do 2000 years ago but no, you won’t listen to Jesus because your Pharisaical Mosaic laws of revenge and hateful way you treat the downtrodden, the poor, the disabled, the different and the lowly among us.

Zealot is a religious term because they do not think, they follow the ancients who themselves killed the first champion Jesus Christ who came out of the closet and became an activist for atheists, homosexuals and prostitutes; the Activist who testified that the religious world couldn’t hate you but which hated him because he testified of the religious world that their works were evil, bigotted and insane with the supernatural deceit of magic tricks for miracles.

You give lip service to Jesus but your heart is far from him and don’t accept anything he ever said: about loving your neighbor, treating others like you expect them to treat you, with compassion, gentle care, understanding and forgiveness.

Why can’t you admit that you don’t understand a thing Jesus taught and why you can only complain about homosexuals and their “agenda” as that word agenda itself is made tainted by your use.

You cancel Jesus’ commands by your own rules. Frauds! Isaiah’s prophecy of you hit the bull’s-eye:

These people make a big show of saying the right thing in lip-lock service
teaching for doctrine the rules of men but their heart isn’t in it.
They act like they’re worshiping me but it’s in vain;
they don’t mean it.
They just use me as a cover
for teaching whatever suits their fancy.”

Yeah, some agenda you have there newschristianviews, just a wee bit wobbly wethinks. But great for de base ment followers suppose ye?

The blogoshere has been a buzz lately with the homosexual agenda and against my better judgement I’ll weigh in.

One study says this and another study says that in regards to sexual orientation. The Bible says we were created male and female but this is a fallen world. Sexual orientation seems to be more of a spectrum based on what I’ve read and anecdotal evidence I’ve observed. This spectrum ranges from 100% heterosexual to bi-sexual to 100% homosexual with different shades in between. It’s my conclusion SSA is due to a combination of nature and nurture. Whatever the reason for SSA behavior is behavior. We should state what we believe is the truth and help where we can without forgetting we are sinners too. I don’t get the reason they so desparately need approval if they think the behavior is normal.
Lots of people disprove of me and it never kept me up at night if I think I’m right.

I think engaging in homosexual behavior is sinful but it shouldn’t be illegal, homosexuals shouldn’t be killed/abused (follow the golden rule). There are also heterosexual behaviors that I think are sinful. There are others who think some heterosexual behaviors I think are okay are sinful (eg. any sexual activity that is not open to procreation).

SSM is the law of the land here in Canada so I haven’t been paying much attention to this topic. I was against SSM but supported civil unions. We live in a pluralistic society and I wish as much personal freedom as possible for myself and others. That being said, there are legal behaviors which if I engaged in I’d consider sinful. Now if others think these behaviors are not sinful there isn’t much I can do about it except express my opinion.

I hear (not sure of the whole story) the Catholic Church leaders are concerned in San Francisco over the nature v. nurture because pro-homosexual groups are trying to challenge the ban against employing those engaging in homosexual activity. If you can fire/not hire a person because they are not practicing Catholics, committing adultery, fornicating, apostates, heretics, schismatics, etc… why not for engaging in homosexual activity? Religious rights are under attack so they may be in trouble over this. Probably giving up their tax free status will be required for the present. Later hate speech laws may be used against them. I believe just over 50% of Catholics think “being gay is okay” so they’re having some problems with this issue.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and others really gives homosexuals a bad name. Does this have something to do with the problem? Is it at all deserved? Rape gangs whether heterosexual or homosexual are an abomination. When talking about homosexuals shouldn’t we be talking about two consenting adults. Heterosexuals also have rapists, rape gangs, child molesters, perverts, cheaters, those who have large numbers of sexual partners, etc…

The pro-homosexual lobby has some great pr (Will and Grace, Ellen, Modern Family, etc…). Like all things of late
(eg. abortion, welfare, crime and punishment, discrimination, euthanasia, environment) the pro-homosexual lobby is going to push this to the extreme. This is their chance to right another injustice.

The four points you make are well-taken. Whenever I see this controversy brought up it nearly always lacks any genuine consideration or understanding presented given to reasoning by those who condemn homosexuals. It’s usually posited in nebulous [sometimes outright false or biased] terms that attempt to convict all homosexuals of living a life that’s an “abomination” in God’s sight. They cite various Scriptures in support of their claim. Although, in many instances I think they seek to adhere to the letter of the law while they neglect or violate the law’s spirit.

To the best of my knowledge no one knows precisely why any of us has the particular sexual orientation we do. Is it nurture or nature or some degree of combination between the two? Is it purely carnal or is human sexuality determined through mental processes or by the spirit? What role does aging both chronological and experiential have in shaping our individual sexual traits/make-up? How do we express our sexuality in context to its complex relationship to ourselves, others and God Himself if we believe in Him? What are the undergirding emotional factors affecting that representation? Are they healthful confidence, exhilaration, and love or trepidation, debilitating melancholia, and jealousy? Why so? What happens when we experience betrayal in our intimate human relationships? How does our conception of beauty affect our sexual desires? How does our societal relationship to an individual affect our attitude towards their sexual identity? And what of the penalty found in the Bible for being homosexual? Is it not death? (Leviticus 20:13) Should we transpose that sentence into our modern day society? Some do. But it’s not because they believe in the Bible [ISIS for one]. Would you ostracize homosexuals? Would you marginalize homosexuals? Deny them the vote in civil government or the opportunity for military service? Ban them from the workplace, commerce & the public square? Deny them the ability to adopt children? Segregate them into certain neighborhoods and schools? Bar them from public transportation? Quarantine them like lepers in an attempt to prevent “the spread of their condition”? Nullify by lurid innuendo their guarantee to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? How could godly people live by malevolence? There’s such a conglomeration of intertwined forces and interests at work here both physical & metaphysical. It’s no wonder sexuality drills vast deep roots into so many decisions of consequence.

From the biblical perspective I hold to the expressed admonition of my LORD and Savior, Yahshua Messiah: “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Now He’s not telling us not to assess our brethren to see if they’re walking in the Spirit [Romans 8:1-4]. He’s counseled us to show us that we must examine the fruit we produce to see whether it be good or ill [Luke 6:44; John 15:1-10, 12, 17]. What He does tell us is to refrain from harsh judgment of one another for you’ll get what you give [Matthew 7:2]. When you don’t have full command of all the facts in a given case how then do you make a true judgment [John 7:24]? Or as Yahshua said, How do you remove the speck in your brother’s eye when you don’t see the plank in your own eye [Matthew 7:3-5]? That certainly would constitute harsh judgment. What I do see commonly posed as rational for condemning homosexuals is Romans Chapter 1. I urge every one especially Christians to continue reading the entire Book of Romans and more so that they may take Paul’s complete message in full context. Pay close attention to: [Romans 2:1, 2; 14:4, 10-13]. We’re commanded by God to be holy for He is holy [1 Peter 1:13-19]. Fact remains we are all sinners. We all fall short in His sight [Romans 3:23]. In the final analysis each of us must give our own account to the Righteous Judge. We shouldn’t compound our sins by our own invalid judgments. It’s much more important that we don’t cause a brother or sister to fall or impede their way to the LORD than seeking vacant justice through tainted myopic vision [Hebrews 12:14]. We should never hinder the building of Messiah’s Body. In Paul’s first epistle to the assembly at Corinth he made it plainly known: “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified of this [Romans 3:28]; but He who judges me is the Lord [Galatians 2:16]. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.” (1 Corinthians 4:3-5) The crux of this controversy isn’t sexual immorality vs. godly standard but righteous judgment vs. enduring mercy. Praise God that we serve a gracious righteous LORD, “For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment [Matthew 12:7]”. (James 2:13)

Richard B. Hays makes an important point that Christians need to consider in his chapter on Homosexuality in The Moral Vision of The New Testament, pg. 393 –

“This has profound implications for how the Christian community ought to respond to persons of homosexual inclination. Even if some of their actions are contrary to God’s design, the cross of Christ models the way in which the community of faith ought to respond to them; not in condemnation, but in sacrificial service. This is a particularly urgent word for the church in a time when the AIDS plague has wrought great suffering among homosexuals….Second, the cross marks the end of the old life under the power of sin (Rom 6:1-4). Therefore, no one in Christ is locked into the past or into a psychological or biological determinism. Only in light of the transforming power of the cross can Paul’s word of exhortation be spoken to Christians who-like my friend Gary (dying of Aids) – struggle with homosexual desires” – 393.

“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace”. Rom 6:12-14

Homosexuality and other heterosexual sins are all sins. We are conceived in sin and shaped in iniquity. This is a our default nature when we are born. We are in Adam. It doesn’t matter what type of sin we are engaged in, it’s all sin and all who are “in” Adam are automatically by no fault of their own under condemnation.

When a person is “in” Christ, his sins are completely taken away and he is made 100% completely righteous regardless of his behavior. It is only through the Spirit of God that a person can begin to live like who God declares he is – righteous. So behavior change will follow salvation or being in Christ. We can’t change people’s behavior or condemn them for their sins, they are condemned already because of who they are in – Adam. It’s not behavior change they need, it’s life that they need, and that life is from Jesus.

So God is fair, by no fault of our own we are condemned and by no virtue of our own can be made 100% perfect and righteous by Jesus. This is the gospel.

I’m amazed at how so many Christians get upset because some person claims to be a Christian but also claims to be homosexual. We have forgotten that God rigged this thing. If a person is born again, the Spirit will not lead him into homosexuality. Can a person struggle with this sin ? Of course he can, and if he does struggle, that actually proves he is born of the Spirit. On the other hand, if a person openly confesses his homosexuality and Christ at the same time, then whether that person is really born again is in serious doubt.

I previously went to a church that condoned homosexual behavior and thought it was perfectly normal that a believer can merrily live a homosexual lifestyle while professing belief in Christ. This was very confusing to me and I liken it to mixing oil and water. Homosexuality, and every other sin for that matter, does not fit a believer’s identity any longer. It’s like putting on a coat that is too small, it just doesn’t fit. There is only one word to describe a true believer who is living a sinful lifestyle – miserable. This is how it should be and it is not God convicting or condemning that person. It is a case of identity crisis. The Spirit of God living in a believer does not agree with sin. It should feel uncomfortable. I don’t know hoe else to explain it. But if you are a believer you know what I mean. If you are in Christ your are NOT a “sinner”. You may have sinful behavior but your are NOT a sinner. You’re identity is from Christ, don’t let the enemy try to hold this over you.

On the other hand, if that coat does fit, and the person likes to wear the coat, again, we must go back to the source and recognize that behavior can only change if a person is born again in Christ. A person can be religious but not have Christ.

2Ti 2:19 But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”

I appreciate your comment; it shows that common sense still abounds in you. 🙂

I have never had many contacts with the gay community but one thing has always stood out in my mind. My sister, fearing that after being married for more than 5 years her husband and her decided to adopt a baby boy; shortly after the adoption, as fate would have it she became pregnant and bore a boy child.

The adopted child had a normal childhood however one day after not seeing the family for several years I visted my sister. The adopted son was 5yrs of age; the toddler around 3 yrs. Getting ready to leave I kissed the toddler on the cheek and was about to kiss the 5 yr old but the 5 yr old put his arms around my neck and kissed me on the lips and ligered a few seconds. I was taken aback and commented to my sister that the adoptee acted like he was gay. The adoptee did grow up and soon had a boyfriend he began living with. During the adult years the adoptee displayed all the effinate traits commonly associated with gays. I could never judge him; but he had the traits 5yrs of age and I imagine at 4yr at 3yrs and in fact from out of the womb and I could no other than reasonably extrapolate that he was “born to be” the way he was and I defend his humanity that includes his unseemly condition and that without blame on that child.

Typo corrections in Post 10 which I failed to edit before posting: “ligered” a few seconds should be “lingered” a few seconds, in line 5 paragraph 3; and, in line 8 of paragraph 3, “effinate” traits should read “effeminate” traits……sorry about causing that confusion.

Paul V.V.
Interesting that the alpha letter “W”, in English is pronounced Double “U” and in French it is Double “V” (phonetically Doobel/Dubbel “vay” or “vey”) Just as aside.

However the use of acronyms always puzzle me if they are not in abbrviated form after the actual words they represent so when I searched the Acronym SSA, I came up with: Social Security Administration, Seismological Society of America, Soaring Society of America, Secondary School Apprenticeship, Space Situational Awareness,……based on the topic I assume SS refers to Same Sex but I don’t know if “A” stands for Apparent, Affiliation, Association, Anomaly, Aberrant, Abnormal, Activist, Adherent, and so on. I assume SS means Same Sex but I remain possibly obstuse about the “A”.

Nevertheless, I am glad you made your comment despite your reluctance to “weigh in” on the subject because I believe your comments have proved very useful and important to the topics, not because of the cliche: “the more the merrier” but all decisions need the wise counsels of many voices and regardless of my atheist position I am not averse to use wise scriptures to support my views: Proverbs 11:14
Without good direction, people lose their way;
The more wise counsel you follow, the better your chances.
AND
Prov 24:5-6
It’s better to be wise than strong;
intelligence outranks muscle any day.
Strategic planning is the key to warfare;
to win, you need a lot of good counsel.

So thank you for your input; please continue; I for one appreciate your viewpoints.

Your quote of Richard B. Hays confusing me on several levels: First of all, the first paragraph “This has profound implications……………” is okay and seems to consider a conciliatory tone however not without stating that “Even if some of their actions are contrary to God’s design….”which I do not accept but then he goes on to say: “…… the cross of Christ models the way…..”

BUT, It is the “life of Jesus that models the way” and substituting “the cross of Christ” for the “life of Jesus” is sacriligious, even blasphemy, from where I sit.

The second part, again referring erroneously to the model of the “cross” instead of the model of the “life” of Jesus states that “no one in Christ is locked into the past or into a psychological or biological determinism.” On the face of it that is correct because there is no condemnation in Jesus’ message (other than to religion and the clergy) but then in the last paragraph

The admonition of condemnation goes out yet again: ““Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions……..” yada yada yada.

You know, it’s like, “oh I forgive your sins but you are a sinner stil and don’t ever live your lifestyle again……”

Unless I am reading it wrong, you are forgiving and condemning in the same comment. On one cheekI forgive, the other cheek I condemn.

I cannot agree with you at all. Born into sin? the default position? That is utter rubbish; this is what clergy tell you but that is totally ridiculous. If you’re a Christian. You’re born already in debt, to Jesus, and it’s a debt that you can only repay, in full, by dying. Whew, that’s some deal you got yourself there.
That’s like asking you to pay off a mortgage on a house that you already own.

“We are conceived in sin”; this is a our default nature when we are born. This is the most ludicrous statement that ever existed; it is so against nature as to lead one to ask why anyone would ever come up with such a stupid ridiculous proposition. And yet, you have minions accepting this most stupid of concepts and reciting them as though they actually made sense when in fact they are the most insane of all concepts the world has ever been subjected to.

Bear with me. I want to share with you as best I can some of what I see when I look at Messiah. Now’s the time of the Passover. This was the shadow picture the LORD gave to help bring us to understanding concerning the gift He would make of His Son. A slain lamb without blemish whose shed blood would be put upon three door posts of the houses to prevent the execution of the LORD’s judgment from entering [Exodus 12:1-14]. I know you attribute strong significance to the life that Jesus/Yahshua lived among us some 2000 years ago. As the Gospel accounts inform us He did indeed convict the Jewish religious leaders of His day for their hypocrisy, obstinance and deceitfulness in their dealings with God and man. He demonstrated absolute love, forgiveness and peace towards His disciples in ways of wonder and majesty. Truly His life was like no other before or since because of the courage He showed in the face of corruption. His life did serve a magnificent purpose. It’s the perfect model for how we all should treat everyone from the destitute to the Divine. Remember though, what was His primary purpose in coming? He came to redeem creation. He said so Himself, that His life would be a ransom for many. He willingly laid down His life so that He could fulfill the will of God and take it up again. And when He spoke from the Cross one of His final declarations was, “It is finished!” [Paid in full!] The price to reconcile the entire creation to God so that the curse [Genesis 3:14-19] could be revoked was finally & completely paid once & for all on that hill in Judea. After being dead for 3 days and 3 nights then He rose again to life, the first of many brethren, according to the scriptures. It’s His death that enables Him to be the propitiation http://www.jesus.org/following-jesus/repentance-faith-and-salvation/what-does-propitiation-mean.html for our sins while His Resurrection serves as validation of that fact from God the Father [1 Peter 1:18-21]. This is why Yahshua’s death proves so critical; for without it redemption of all creation becomes impossible.

Frank:
Almost everything you said in your last post is true except for the religious spin about his death and resurrection:

“It is finished”: Anybody can have any opinion about what those words reference, if he said them, ” forgive them for they know not what they do” if he said them, “Father why have you forsaken me?” if he said them. How close can people get to public executions to hear what the victims say, if anything?

Now when someone ransoms his life or lays down his life does not automatically mean he refers to his death, although Jesus knew from the outset that he was taking his life into his own hands by going against the power of the religious rulers, Jesus “dedicated” his life to uphold the dignity of his fellow man especially the poor, the downtodden, the disabled, the non religious, those whom the religious scholars walked all over counting them nothing more than rabble, mostly because they had nothing to contribute to the religious coffers.

There were three aspects to his campaign, one was uplifting of those who needed a champion, one was exposing the religious authority for not practicing what they preached and the hypocrisy of their stance and the other was debunking the religious notion that the supernatural myths of gods, demons and religious dogma of who god was, was false and where God rally resided was in the human psyche.

When people claim that Jesus died for your sins; that itself is one of the falsehoods of religious spins. While the sins of the religious rulers were impactful and caused the incessant hunt, and bribes/rewards/decrees for the capture and arrest of Jesus, the crucifixion was because of the sins operating in the ruthless rulers who hated him. Commonly referred to as the sins of the world, the sins of corruption directing the function of greed, power and ego within the religious community was the instrument behind the crucifixion. So he was not crucified because of all the sins of the world past, current and future, that’s absurd to even imagine.

Now the Resurrection was not a resurrection of the dead but a Resurrection of the life. To me this is a simple concept without a complicated supernatural spin which the entire religous world was brainwashed to believe as religion continues to brainwash people to believe today so it can keep the world in thrall to its clever deception appealing to the unknown on which all religious, superstition and the supernatural needs to thrive.

When one looks at the power and wealth of his two secret disciples, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, it is no small wonder that Jesus knew Judas had accepted the reward/bribe to eventually betray Jesus’ location and it’s no small wonder that Jesus was always on top of what the Jewish council was plotting against him, where they would focus searching for him because of the position of both secret disciples on the inside as Members of the Sanhedrin, the Rulers of the Jews. And they were secret disciples of long standing from the early days when Nicodemus went to Jesus in the middle of the night and Joseph of Arimathea used his wealth and mansion properties as meeting places, including “the last supper” and to help Jesus in many ways that included the feeding of the thousands and preparing the fermented wine secretly introduced for the wedding at Cana.

One can follow biblical passages of Jesus telling his usual, regular, disciple followers to go to a certain place and tell the person you find there that the Master had need of such and such, to Joseph hewing out his own tomb. as it was supposed, for two years in preparation of a certain day that would serve a twofold purpose: a general perceived purpose, as a tomb; and, the secret purposes as the intermediary place for triage infirmary in preparation for an escape through a corridor hewn at the same time as the tomb was being hewn thereby able to begin an intensive care recovery from the assaults on his body immediately. To Joseph asking Pilate for the body and both he and Nicodemus attended to the burial themselves.

Nicodemus was reputed to be the third wealthiest man in town and have no doubt, both he and Joseph had the top physicians with the best tools and medications available at the beckon call of the secret disciples. Remember great feats of secret engineering wonders were not without precedent; look at the Pyramid tombs and tunnels that are still being discovered today, the Underground City of Dixia Cheng in recent years(1970’s) and the underground army complete with horses and chariots. The Terracotta Army or the “Terracotta Warriors and Horses”, a collection of terracotta life-size sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried with the emperor in 210–209 BCE and whose purpose was to protect the emperor in his afterlife. discovered in 1974 by local farmers in Lintong District, Xi’an, Shaanxi province, Estimates from 2007 were that the three pits containing the Terracotta Army held more than 8,000 soldiers,(each soldier stands 6 feet tall and weighs 600 pound.) 130 chariots with 520 horses and 150 cavalry horses, the majority of which remained buried in the pits nearby Qin Shi Huang’s mausoleum. Other terracotta non-military figures were found in other pits, including officials, acrobats, strongmen and musicians.

One doesn’t need to have an overactive imagination to make the biblical connections as outlined but as for the religious believer he does require a SUPER NATURAL overactive imagination to conjure up the images that: “Royal Religion’s Pope Fling and his Far Flung Fantasies are Far Fetched.

The whole Dolce & Gabbana (D&G) brouhaha with Elton John et all sums up one of my main concerns nicely. Here you have homosexuals expressing their thoughts in support of the traditional family and they get lambasted by their “friends” (with friends like that you don’t need enemies). The term “synthetic children” may have not been the best saying but it’s just an opinion why the big pile on?

Frank:
I cannot get by the first statement in the virtual reality video and that is, that the Big Bang is an established fact. And the second important thing I would not be able to get by is that if objective reality is a simulation in a mind, it seems to me that my mind or all minds of goodwill necessarily would have to be the egos that control the simulation and if that is the case, what the good minds will the world to be, so shall it come to be. And if so, it is the will of the father in good minds that all those of good mind will have peace, happiness, comfort, security, health and life; that is, life without war, sorrow, discomfort, fear, disease and death.

Isaiah 14:24: “………….Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand” 26 “This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.” 27……..The Father hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?”

Frank:
Your post 25: “If the Son therefore shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.: (John 8:36) This scripture is not referring to Jesus, oer se; this part of the dialogue is part of a parable; in other words, a metaphor. The essence of this dialogue is contained in what Jesus actually said about being free before giving the parable and this is what he said about being set free: “31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Now Frank, “knowing the truth; that is “knowing” the truth and that knowledge will set you free.” Remember Jesus is not saying abything about “believing” the truth but “knowing” the truth. As I have always maintained, knowledge will set you free because belief never can.

He gave the servant/son( the heir), as a parable to hammer home the moral of the story: knowledge, which is truth, will set you free. Of course the video goes off on another tangent and he says that love will set you free but althoughb lve can be incoporated into the theme, it is not the theme Jesus was speaking about.

Frank:
Getting back for a moment about the quantum virtual reality world. “Is it possible our world is a virtual reality?” The narrator tries to to use quantum physics to prove the existence of god but his logic is nonsense by his own admission.

Brian Whitworth: Objective Reality Hypothesis: “reality is physical in and of itself and needs nothing outside of it to explain it.” compared to: Virtual Reality Hypothesis: “our world exists by depending on information processing happening outside of space-time.”

In the micro world, “atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possiblities rather than one of things or facts”. And while this may be true, the objective world of reality does not function according to the virtual reality of quantum physics. When I look for my spouse, I can see her where she actually is, not where I want her to be and she will not be in two places at the same time nor will she disappear when I look at her and I will see her if I am looking in the place where she is in objective reality. In quantum physics the particles appear to be where you want them to be, but my wife doesn’t follow quantum logic or virual reality; she decides and not me.

In quantum physics micro particles operate in a dimension that is not applicable to the dimension of macro physics and as small as we humans are, we operate in the macro dimention. If god exists in the micro world of quantum physics, there s/he will remain. And that’s about all I understand of quantum physics/mechanics.

Leo, yes knowledge of the truth will set you free. However that does not negate belief entirely.

Consider these verses in Romans where we have knowledge made known to us by God by virtue of the creation. It is plain and obvious for all to see but man suppresses the truth. More than that, there are no excuses. All this banter about evolution versus creation is a waste of time.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Now consider verse 3 in Hebrews chapter 11. We see that we have the knowledge of the creation by “faith”. This is not mathematical knowledge or knowledge of how to make vaccines for polio !! This is much greater than that, this is heavenly cosmic knowledge that man has been seeking since the dawn of time.

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

We see that without faith it is impossible to acquire this knowledge. So you see, knowledge that will set you free must have the element of faith or it can’t set you free.

How did Jesus say we can come to the knowledge of the truth ? By “continuing” in His Word. How do we continue in Jesus’ words ? By faith of course ! We believe he says and we walk in it. Jesus is a person proclaiming a message. We can choose to believe Him or not. If we take Him at His word, we will find that He is the embodiment of the truth that sets us free.

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Leo, you set your sights too low my friend. The knowledge that you profess, the mathematics and medicinal cures etc.., are silly putty in the hands of an Almighty God who could create things out of nothing ?

Naz:
Thanks you for the scriptures. However it’s merely repeat religious dogma. Paul was as supernatural minded as you can be. One does not abide in Jesus’ word by Faith; that’s nonsense, the simplicity is that the message and words of Jesus resonate with anyone drawing on deductive logic and reason.

“……. in the things that have been made.” is an empiricist’s way of attributing the trees and objects in the world to creation and therefore necessarily to the Creator.

You use the same repetitive jargon that religion uses to keep you in thrall and if you repeat something over enough times any lie can become true in the mind; it’s the psychology of ritualism from which religion draws its base. In fact Naz I have just finished my famous Theorems on the cunning pervasive Religious Ritualism: here for your information: only knowledge will set you free, belief never can.

FUNDAMENTALLY DEDUCTIVE.

Truth Fairy’s 1st Theorem of Nonsense:
“Religion gives the human ego the attitude of being right about something that is totally unknowable by the smartest of men.”

Truth Fairy’s 2nd Theorem of nonsense:
“Religious ritualism hypnotizes the Stupid Man into thinking he is smart enough to invent and thus know, the True God; at the same time religious ritualism hypnotizes the Smart Man into thinking he can be the earthly representative of the True God that the Stupid Man invents.”

Corollary 1:
“In this way, by using religious rituals, both stupid men and smart men are made proselytes for religion.”

Corollary 2:
“Claimant one invents and promotes the Creator and Claimant two invents and promotes the Messenger.”

Corollary 3:
“Both Claimants support each other.”

Fundamentally Deductive drawing on reason and logic, not facts.

In medicine you may be interested to know that man is already redesigning the heart so that in the future the if the single artery that supplies a part of the heart fails, called the Widow Maker, it will be the widow maker no more.

There are three arteries that run over the surface of the heart and supply it with blood. There is one artery on the right side, and two arteries on the left side. The one on the right is known as the right coronary. On the left side, which is the main side, we have the left anterior descending (LAD) that runs down the front of the heart and supplies the front and main wall, and then the left circumflex that supplies the side wall. When the main artery down the front of the heart (LAD) is totally blocked or has a critical blockage, right at the beginning of the vessel, it is known as the Widow Maker, (the medical term for this is a proximal LAD lesion). No one knows exactly who came up with the term, but the reason they did is likely that if that artery is blocked right at the beginning of its course, then the whole artery after it, goes down. This essentially means that the whole front wall of the heart goes down. As far as heart attacks go, this is a big one, with big consequences if not dealt with appropriately; it’s why we take it so seriously.

A heart attack generally occurs when there is a critical blockage in one or more of the arteries that supply the heart muscle with blood. Within minutes of the critical blockage occurring the heart muscle stops working, and if blood flow is not restored within minutes to hours the muscle typically dies. The consequences are often catastrophic, the heart attack may be large enough to lead to sudden death, and unfortunately many patients do not make it to hospital alive. For those that survive and make it to hospital, the outlook is certainly improved, but if the blood supply is not restored in a timely fashion, a scar replaces the once beating heart muscle and the heart is often irreversibly damaged. The good news is that if done in time, we can treat these lesions to good effect with the use of minimally invasive techniques such as stent placement.

But now at the advent of artifical heart scaffolding, researches are adding two and three arteries down the single artery side making the Widow Maker artery no longer the threat it currently is.

Until you find the Real Yahshua you’re just whistling while you walk past the graveyard.

“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17, 18)

Naz you are waiting for the earth and heaven to pass away and there was no more sea but Naz heaven and earth itself is not passing away; this refers to the New Era Changing; it’s a Transition Naz, which is why I am already here in the New Heaven and New Earth: and you are still there——come on over Naz; it’s wonderful how knowledge sets you free.
Isaiah 65:17
The Glorious New Creation
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

The Old Law WAS AND IS destroyed ………..in its fulfillment; that is to say, changed by the fulfillment as Jesus demonstrated (by his life, I note again) and until it is fulfilled correctly, the Law remains to them subjected to it, who fails to transition from the Old School Frank; you are Old School Frank; and there’s no easy way to say it. But in love is it said.

Naz:
One more thing worth noting noting if you would. John speaks of “seeing the New Heaven”…note that John speaks in the “singularity” from his own head while Isaiah, using a subtle difference speaks of the New Heavens, in the plurality, referring to “many heads” which of course is where the heaven concept resides: “within you” as a singularity in your head and mind and “within you” as a plurality in everybody elses’ head and mind.

As you therefore have received Messiah Yahshua/Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Messiah. For in Him dwells all the goodness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power. In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Messiah, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. (Colossians 2:6-15, 18, 19)

If then you were raised with Messiah, seek those things which are above, where Messiah is, sitting at the right hand of God. Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Messiah in God. When Messiah who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory. Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Messiah is all and in all. Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Messiah forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Messiah dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Yahshua/Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. (Colossians 3:1-4, 9-17)

So shall He sprinkle many nations [Exodus 24:3-8]. Kings shall shut their mouths at Him; for what had not been told them they shall see, and what they had not heard they shall consider. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities. Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and He was numbered with the transgressors [Luke 22:37], and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 52:15, 53:11, 12)

Leo, just to clarify, when I speak about a new heaven and a new earth, I’m talking about a cosmic general reality of the Kingdom of God and all its physicality.

As for each and every believer in Christ, the kingdom of God is within them, that is Christ in us. This is the same as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus which gives us life now and forever.

My head is not in the clouds, Christ lives in me and I look for Him inward, not to myself and my strength but His strength and His life. This is true Christianity, everything else is boring dead religion which depends on man’s strength and intellect.

This is a great irony : Those that reject Christ because they don’t want religion end up becoming a religion to themselves. Because they reject Christ, their life is based on their own self effort and knowledge. This is at the core of man-made religion, self effort and self, self,self….

I’m glad I’m not part of any religion….especially one I created for myself.

Gal_2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The Father of Jesus lives within you, Yes, but when Jesus walked it was the Father within him that led him so you have to ask yourself, who was the “within you” that inspired other biblical characters like Isaiah, Ezekiel for example could not have rejected Christ if he had not already come.

Gal 2:20 then seems to nullify all that came before Jesus crucifixion including John the Baptist, Jesus’ cousin and perhaps half brother and as I said the notable two I just mentioned, Isaiah, Ezekiel and perhaps Moses. I cannot imagine that these men were not also led by the Father within whether they knew it or not I do not know, however, the Father’s(Kingdom) within was first spoken of by Jesus and that’s how I know about it but I think we cannot exclude those who came before and remember the words:

None can come to the Father except through the son and None can come through the Son unless the spirit of the Father draw him. It’s a two fold association which must necessarily have been the operatives before Jesus’ life but Jesus, to his credit, explained it.

Leo, the Father within is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God Himself, not some other spirit.

It was that same spirit that led and inspired David, Isaiah, Ezekiel etc… So yes, we do NOT exclude those before Jesus.

David had the spirit of God and asked God not to take it away…

Psa 51:11 Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

Here we see Peter talking about the spirit that was in the prophets of the OT, it was in fact the spirit of Christ.

1Pe 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
1Pe 1:11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories.

Paul also mentions the spirit of Christ. Notice it is the one and the same as the spirit of God.

Rom_8:9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Leo, I think we need to be careful how we define “religion” and the associated words that describe religion in general.

The religion you speak of is anything that pertains to God and the supernatural. While I can understand and accept that as a general definition, it misses the mark for deeper understanding and dialogue. I think the word “religion” has certain connotations that cannot be avoided. Apart from a worship of a God or gods, it carries a lot of baggage which does not do justice to the person that has found the true meaning of religion in Christ. I don’t think it’s fair to lump everyone who worships a God/gods into one category and call them religious. This is not semantics, it goes to the very core of what we believe. Therefore to avoid confusion, I often describe myself as not being part of any religion and instead prefer to describe my religion as “being in Christ”. This makes it clear that I am not a Legalist, a Catholic, a Pentecostal, a Baptist, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc….. I do this purposely because those labels carries baggage we might not want to be associated with, like it or not.

Therefore, I would prefer to broaden the definition of religion to any belief system, with or without a God/gods, that has at its core, focus on self and self effort in order to achieve a fulfilling life and/or to please a Deity or deities.

Life and the joy of freedom, this is all found in Jesus Christ, not religion. If you are talking about Life and the joy of freedom apart from Christ, this is not possible. Anything apart from the Life that Jesus gives is death. No matter how you feel. Feelings have nothing to do with it. It’s about truth and knowledge of the truth. Feelings change daily for all of us.

I am already free from the bondage of what you call “religion”. I appreciate your concern but Atheism is just another religion that I don’t need.

Col_3:4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.